Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Roskott [2014] NSWSC 246

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Roskott [2014] NSWSC 246

Proceedings commenced seeking possession of a property claiming a judgment against the defendants for a sum in excess of $1 million. The defendants, acting for themselves, claimed a new agreement had been entered into with the plaintiff’s chief executive officer, in which the defendants had discharged the debt with one dollar under the Bills of Exchange Act 1909, and that the giving of the bill of exchange to the bank operates as a promissory note.

Click to access commonwealth-bank-of-australia-v-roskott-2014-nswsc-246.pdf


Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Roskott (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 1093

The notice of appeal challenged the decision that the Bill of Exchange was invalid, and the conduct of the hearing by Davies J. asserting that his Honour was biased; ignored the affidavit of the applicants; “practised law from the bench in claiming no agreement was reached prior to the hearing“; that he bullied the applicant/defendants by using derogatory terms; and “allowed for defect of law by claiming one of the documents tendered to plaintiff to be not valid and has agreed on record to certify this“. A stay was sought so as to preserve their ownership and possession of their home pending the hearing and determination of their appeal, but it was rejected. The argument advanced notes that the Bill of Exchange was sent by registered mail, was delivered to the Bank, there has been no return of the Bill by the Bank and, accordingly, his Honour was in error by failing to find that the Bill of Exchange had discharged the debt which existed.

Click to access commonwealth-bank-of-australia-v-roskott-no.2-2014-nswsc-1093.pdf


Roskott v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 341

Although they were advised that if they had concerns regarding their legal position they should seek independent legal advice, neither the applicants or their legal representative appeared, so the hearing proceeded on the papers and orders were made in their absence. Noting that the proposed application for leave to appeal has no apparent prospects of success, the Court dismissed the summons and ordered the applicants to pay the respondent’s costs.

Click to access roskott-v-commonwealth-bank-of-australia-2014-nswca-341.pdf

.